Posted on 12/03/2014 5:57:55 PM PST by what's up
THE WHITE House has defended President Obama’s unilateral decision to legalize the presence of nearly 4 million undocumented immigrants as consistent, even in scope, with the executive actions of previous presidents. In fact, it is increasingly clear that the sweeping magnitude of Mr. Obama’s order is unprecedented.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
How can one impose “fundamental change” without doing things that “have no precedent?”
do we actually have an EO???
Whats the number??
Wow!
Dude! Where’s my Constitution?
Too much water to bail in the Jug-eared liar’s boat?
The power of the Executive branch needs to garroted and quickly at that.
Did Obummer leave the Compost off the memo list?
It is going to get a lot worse. Has anyone stopped him yet? I am a little less than confident in the gutless old party.
Yah, it does. Maduro.
Got toilet paper?
Or got left hand?
Shit, it’s tough being a southpaw in this crappy environ. But, I can be cool with that. We practice both handed.
Know what? I’m better on weak side - draw single hand. In fact, (IDPA Master), I took to putting my carry on the other side, and spending some considerable time putting significant lead downrange.
Squantos is my go-to on sits like this.
Sadly we’ve had many presidents, some of them conservatives, who seem to have been clueless about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers, including with immigration.
With all due respect to the family and supporters of President Reagan for example, while his intentions for signing an immigration bill presented to him by Congress were undoubtedly good, it remains that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration.
More specifically, and PC interpretations of the Constitution’s Uniform Rule of Naturalization Clause (1.8.4) and the slavery clause (1.9.1) aside, interpretations used to justify federal immigration laws, please note the following. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had written that immigration is not one of the federal government’s constitutionally delegated powers.
Here’s the related excerpt from Jefferson’s writings.
“4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force [emphasis added].” —Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798.
And here’s the related excerpt from Madison’s writings.
"That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, ...…
… the General Assembly doth solemenly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people [emphasis added]. ”— James Madison, Draft of the Virginia Resolutions - December 1798.
Again, the federal government has no constitutional standing, imo, to regulate intrastate immigration.
As a side note to this thread, consider that there are now at least four major controversial issues being argued today that are arguably a consequence of state lawmakers unthinkingly ratifying the ill-conceived 17th Amendment.
Constitutionally indefensible Obamacare Democratcare
Constitutionally indefensible federal immigration laws
Unconstitutional land grabs by corrupt Congress
The fact that lawless Obama has not been impeached out of office by now.
Uuuuuh ....yeah. ?
Perhaps the only precedent would be when King George still ruled the American colonies and his actions sparked a revolution. Our Founding Fathers carefully crafted a Constitution that would supposedly make it impossible for the US president to become a despot. Sadly they did not anticipate that dishonorable men would would occupy the White House and Congress, the press would become corrupt and political ignorance and apathy would take over the people.
No you silly goose, this is not an EO, like DACA before it was not an EO. It is an autocratic decree.
Q. Would Elvis shoot weak hand?
A. Only if he practiced.
That, my FRiend, is an object lesson that comes from paying attention to folks like you on this board.
Stay safe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.